Lutheran Reformission

Law and Gospel

2011-06-16T16:38:00.000-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Law and Gospel:

Q: I have heard preachers say that a person is saved by “grace alone,” as God’s gift, but when I read the Bible, I see so many laws and instructions that tell us what God expects. If God saves as a gift, why does the Bible spend so much time saying what we should do?

These two messages in the Bible can often be an obstacle for Christians when they are reading their Bibles or attempting to understand theology. On one hand, the Bible has very clear statements such as, “By grace you have been saved, through faith, not by works…” while there are others that say such things as “Do this and you shall live.”

This is because there are really two types of teachings in the Bible. The first is called the Law. The Law tells humans what God expects them to do. The clearest example of this kind of teaching in the Bible is the Ten Commandments. The trouble with this teaching, if we look at it in isolation, is that requires perfect obedience for anyone to be saved through it. If any person would present their good deeds to God as a reason to be rewarded, they must keep God’s Law flawlessly. Since no natural human has ever accomplished this, we would be led to believe that all people will be eternally condemned.

Thankfully, the Law is not the last word in the Bible. This is where the other teaching comes into play. This teaching is called the Gospel. This teaching states that, in spite of the fact that no human can satisfy God’s demands by their good behavior, God Himself took on a body, becoming a man Himself, and fulfilled it in place of humanity. After Jesus had done this, He was abandoned by God while He was being crucified, and in that event, He also suffered punishment in place of humanity.

The Law tells us what we must do. The Gospel tells us what God has done. Anyone who trusts that Jesus has fulfilled the Law in their place and suffered punishment in their place, receives the reward earned by Jesus’ perfect life and innocent death—namely eternal life.

The Law has absolutely no power to save anyone, because no person can keep its demands. Instead, the Law works in service to the Gospel. First, it shows every person who hears or reads it how badly they have failed to please God, and forces them to seek a solution outside of themselves. When a person has been forgiven for their sins by God, through trust in Jesus, they then desire to do God-pleasing things, and the Law shows them which things are God-pleasing.

These two teachings create a balance which Christians, even preachers, often have difficulty maintaining. When one strays to one side, it is often tempting to say that one must behave according to the Law in order to be saved. In that case, our behavior, not the work of Jesus would be the cause of salvation. When one strays to the other side, it might be said that because we are saved as God’s gift, our behavior is unimportant. In this case, the Law is completely irrelevant. When the tension between these two teachings is maintained appropriately, we say that Jesus saves without any human contribution, but that the Law of God still stands, first to reveal sin and force people to look to Jesus, then to guide and inform Christians, not as a cause of salvation, but as its result.

Pastoral Qualifications and Assignment

2011-06-02T16:36:00.000-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Pastoral Qualifications and Assignment:

Q: How does one become a pastor, and how do they become the pastor of a particular congregation? How is it decided if/when pastors will move from one congregation to another?

The assignment of pastors to particular congregations is a subject for which there are no commands in the Bible. As a result, there are a wide variety of processes and arrangements by which this occurs.

The apostle Paul does give several qualifications which pastors must meet, which are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. These include that married pastors have only one wife; that they be capable of teaching; exhibit self-control; avoid drunkenness, violence, and greed; that they manage their family well; that they would not have become a Christian only recently; and that they have a good reputation.

Various Christian traditions develop and verify these qualities in different ways. The traditional route in modern Christianity has been that a pastor attend a seminary in order to receive Masters level theological education and spend time under the supervision of the faculty to verify pastoral character. This typically meant 7 years of classroom education along with at least 1 year dedicated to supervised experience in the field.

In more recent times, some denominations have required only attainment of a Bachelors degree, or attendance at a specialized Bible College in order to enter ministry. In a small number of denominations and in some non-denominational congregations, pastors may be accepted with no formal theological education, in which case their qualifications and character would be judged only by the leadership of the local congregation.

In the Bible and the history of the early church, we see many models by which pastors come to lead particular congregations. At times, a man seems to have risen up from within the congregation to become its pastor. On other occasions, Paul has assigned one of his students to pastor a congregation under his care, and at other times, it appears one of the Apostles may have come to lead a congregation, either because they were called upon to do so, or because they happened upon the congregation and saw their need.

So today, the means of assignment to a particular congregation also varies widely among the various branches of Christianity. In my experience, which included the traditional 8 year educational route, the leadership of my denomination compared my strengths and qualifications with the needs of several congregations seeking pastors and assigned me to my current congregation.

In many denominations, assignment by denominational officials continues to be the norm throughout a pastor’s ministerial career. In others, such as mine, the process is different for later ministerial calls than it is for the initial assignment. In the case of my denomination’s churches, congregations take the initiative in calling pastors. Pastors then prayerfully consider the needs of their current and prospective congregations, and accept or decline the request to become their pastor.

In other traditions, the process resembles that of the corporate world. Congregations make known their need for a pastor, and candidates submit applications, interviews are conducted, and a pastor is chosen.

In a small number of denominations, as well as some non-denominational congregations, pastors are not sought from outside of the congregation. Instead, they identify a candidate for ministry from among their own members, and either send him off for training, or even immediately raise him up to be their pastor.

Regardless of the model by which one becomes a pastor or a pastor arrives at a particular congregation, what matters is that congregations seek pastors who meet the Biblical qualifications, and that pastors are faithful to carry out the God-given work assigned to their office—namely to preach Jesus and bring His forgiveness to the people of the congregation through the means He has specified.

Ordination and Anointing the Sick

2011-05-19T16:35:00.000-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Ordination and Anointing the Sick:

Q: Do churches outside of Roman Catholicism practice Ordination and Anointing of the Sick? Are they considered Sacraments in those churches?

There is a wide spectrum of sacramental theology among non-Catholic Christians. On one end of the spectrum, the Eastern Orthodox recognize all seven Roman Catholic Sacraments (and allow the possibility for even more). The Anglican tradition recognizes two Sacraments, but considers the other 5 to be Sacramental Rites. Lutherans recognize at least two Sacraments, but do not specifically limit the number, and most in the Reformed tradition recognize only two Sacraments. Finally, at the opposite end of the spectrum, those in the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions typically recognize no Sacraments, but do still practice Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “ordinances.”

Specifically regarding Ordination, its use varies widely among the different protestant traditions, and even within them, but it is still retained as a practice in many denominations. There is Biblical evidence for the practice in the many cases, especially in Acts and 1 & 2 Timothy, where it speaks of the Apostles “laying hands on” those who would become pastors. In the Lutheran and Anglican traditions, Ordination is a requirement to perform certain ministerial duties, but is not considered a Sacrament.

Other denominations may make use of ordination for some, but not all, ranks of their clergy. For example, they may allow recognition as clergy and placement into pastoral duties without completion of the full requirements for ordination. They would consider those clergy with lesser training to be licensed or certified for ministry, while reserving ordination only for those clergy who have completed the full educational requirements and have been thoroughly examined by church authorities. In such cases, clergy are often required to complete a probationary period of several years before becoming eligible for ordination.

Still other denominations may not practice ordination in any formal sense. These either take a more corporate approach to certifying their clergy where they license them either permanently or for repeated terms of a definite length. In other cases, denominational officials may practice what amounts to self-ordination where any person who feels they have been called to engage in ministry is recognized as clergy by the denominational authorities.

When it comes to the Anointing of the sick, there is Biblical evidence for the practice found in James 5:14, where it says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” (ESV) Based on this verse, the use of oil in prayer, especially prayer for the sick, is found on both ends of the spectrum of Sacramental theologies, although not as frequently in the middle.

On one end of the spectrum, Lutherans have a tradition of using this practice, although not requiring it or considering it sacramental, and many Lutheran pastoral texts provide a ceremony for anointing the sick with oil during prayer.

On the other end of the spectrum, the use of anointing is also frequently, but not uniformly, found within the Pentecostal tradition, where physical contact as an element of fervent prayer tends to be highly valued. I am not personally aware of instances where anointing is used commonly among those in the middle of the spectrum of Sacramental theologies, such as Methodists and the Reformed.

Doctrinal Diversity

2011-05-05T16:33:00.000-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Doctrinal Diversity:

Q: If all Christians get their teachings from the Bible, why is there so much doctrinal diversity among the various Christian churches? Is Christian doctrine a matter of opinion or fact, and is every individual interpretation of the Bible equally valid?

In today’s churches, there certainly is broad diversity in the doctrines that are taught, even on the most foundational teachings of Christianity. For example, one church might teach that God saves people purely as a gift, while another teaches that God requires that humans port forth a majority of the effort from their own ability in order to earn salvation. One Church might teach that Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead, while another might teach that Jesus’ resurrection is merely a myth meant to inspire us to hopeful living.

The first thing to consider when examining this diversity is whether the question is a doctrinal issue or something called an Adiaphoron (something the Bible has neither commanded nor forbidden).

On the issues of Adiaphora, there may be wise or unwise choices, but there is no Biblical command regarding how they must be handled. This type of issue would include things like church government (whether a congregation’s business affairs are decided by the pastor/priest, a group of elders, or democratically by every member) and the style of music used in the worship service. In this sort of question, there is room for diverse conclusions.

In doctrinal questions, such as whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or whether God actually forbids theft, murder, or sexual immorality, there are definite factual answers, and when disagreement arises, only one position can be correct.

The reasons behind the doctrinal diversity we see today are complex, but I can see three primary factors that account for a majority of the differences:

The first of these is what a church believes about Scripture. Some churches believe that the Bible was given by God to human authors who accurately recorded the message they were given. As a result, they believe that the Bible (in its original languages) is without errors and completely trustworthy. Others believe that the Bible is a recording of human contemplation about God, and as a result, contains both elements of divine truth and elements of myth or opinion. This difference will certainly play a large role in accounting for the differing conclusions reached on important questions.

Secondly, what a church considers valid sources of doctrinal authority will play a role in determining its answers to doctrinal questions. Many churches see the Bible as the only authority for Christian Doctrine while others see the Bible as one authority alongside of others, such as traditions, the past rulings and proclamations of church authorities, or personal revelations claimed by individuals or church leaders through such means as dreams or visions. Again, this question will have a significant impact on conclusions reached regarding other doctrinal questions.

The third of these factors is assumptions that are brought to the table when discerning what the Bible says on a given topic. For example, Americans tend to highly value personal freedom and the value of individual effort, which has the potential to distort our understanding of what the Bible is saying. On other occasions, we may approach the Bible with a conclusion we are seeking for it to affirm rather than a question we desire for it to answer. If we are not careful to clear away these sorts of assumptions while we study the Bible, we may find ourselves making the Bible say what we want to hear rather than listening for what it has to teach.

When Christians arrogantly approach the Bible seeking to affirm their existing opinions or trying to harmonize it with what is taught by the world or human authorities, they will probably come to whatever conclusion they desire, but when Christians humbly approach the Bible, acknowledging its authority, they will certainly be led to a deeper understanding of Him about whom all the Scriptures bear witness—namely Jesus, who is the Truth in human flesh.

Pastoral Confidentiality

2011-04-21T16:30:00.000-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Pastoral Confidentiality:

Q: Are pastors required to keep everything they are told confidential? Are there any cases in which a pastor is allowed to expose the things that are revealed to him?

Pastoral Confidentiality is a subject which certainly has its share of myths. I have heard numerous stories from pastors about the assumptions about this that they have encountered in the course of ministry. The common assumption that I hear expressed regarding this ethical question is that all communication with a pastor is considered confidential, but this is only partially true.

The myth that every statement made to a pastor is confidential arises from the idea of the “Confessional Seal.” This is a vow taken by priests and pastors of several denominations when they are ordained as pastors. In the case of my Lutheran ordination vows, the pastor promises “never to reveal the sins confessed” to him.

Because of the long history of this practice in the Christian Church, it is even recognized as privileged communication in most courts, meaning that the pastor cannot be compelled to testify concerning what was confessed to him. But, this does not cover every statement made to a pastor, but only requires the pastor to maintain confidentiality when the information is revealed to him in the course of the ceremonial act of confessing sin to the pastor for the purpose of receiving forgiveness.

In addition to the “Confessional Seal,” there is also a professional expectation that pastors will maintain confidentiality regarding what is said to them in a counseling setting. However, as is also the case even with a psychologist or licensed counselor, this is not an absolute confidentiality. For example, pastors may break confidentiality in a counseling setting to preserve the safety of the person they are counseling. This could occur, for instance, if the counselee states that they intend to harm themselves or others.

To give a similar example, many states now require pastors to be “mandatory reporters” in cases of child abuse, much like teachers and medical professionals. Most (but not all) of these states, though, do make exceptions to this law for the “Confessional Seal” mentioned above.

Beyond these two expectations of confidentiality, pastors are also held to the same spiritual standard as all Christians. Particularly, the Eighth Commandment says, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” When Martin Luther explained this commandment in his catechisms, he taught that this does not only forbid lying about our neighbors, but even telling true things about them when those things are uncomplimentary or harmful to their reputation.

Even further, pastors ought to consider the impact that their statements make on their own reputation and their ability to effectively minister to those they are called to serve. Even if something a pastor was told did not come in the course of confession or counseling or does not harm the reputation of another person, he would be wise to consider how his speech will reflect upon his character and ministry. Many pastors choose to guard very closely what they reveal about anything said to them simply for the reason that a pastor who says too much, even when he is not violating an expectation of confidentiality, may be perceived by others as unreliable or untrustworthy.

Essentially, the only absolute spiritual requirement upon a pastor to maintain confidentiality is when a statement is made in the course of confession. At the same time, there may be other earthly standards of confidentiality which many pastors choose to maintain, even when not religiously mandated. If you have concerns about the confidential nature of something you intend to speak with a pastor about, it is certainly acceptable to clarify with him at the beginning of your conversation to what degree he will consider it confidential.

Christians and Body Art

2011-04-07T16:29:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Christians and Body Art:

Q: Are Christians allowed to have tattoos? What about other body modification such as piercing? Are there any other Biblical laws regulating the appearance of Christians?

There is one verse in the Old Testament which specifically mentions tattooing. Leviticus 19:28 says, “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves.” However, this does not forbid Christians from having a tattoo for two reasons: First, this command does not stand alone, but rather, it is part of a command against idolatry. It forbids the Israelites from having tattoos because of the relation of that practice to the worship of false gods. Second, because it is part of the Old Testament’s ceremonial law, which governed only the people of Israel and only in Old Testament times. Since this law is not related to any of God’s moral demands (summarized in the Ten Commandments) and is not endorsed by New Testament authors, it is not intended to bind the consciences of Christians in the New Testament era.

As Christians, we ought to certainly be careful that we not sin or cause sin in others by our appearance, and the Ten Commandments can serve as our guide in this. For example, Jesus tells us that the Sixth Commandment, which forbids adultery, is broken even when a person harbors lustful thoughts about someone to whom they are not married. In light of this, Christians ought to be careful about how their clothing both reflects on their reputation and whether it might unnecessarily promote lust in another person.

Throughout Christian history, movements have arisen from time to time which insist that there are particular regulations on the appearance of Christians which exceed those in the Ten Commandments. The passages typically cited by those promoting these movements are 1 Peter 3:3 and 1 Timothy 2:9, which they insist forbid such things as the wearing of make-up or jewelry and the braiding of hair.

These verses, however, do not forbid jewelry, elaborate hairstyles, or cosmetics in an absolute sense. In fact, they do not forbid them at all. What they forbid is for a person to rely only on those things for their beauty and reputation rather than on inner qualities such as faithfulness, respect, modesty, and self-control, or to use external beauty or adornment to disguise deficiencies in spiritual character.

Any time that Christian leaders attempt to burden the consciences of Christian people with laws that are unbiblical or that are taken out of the Bible’s proper context, they commit the same error as the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day, with the result that their new laws ultimately lead people away from Jesus rather than to Him. This sort of approach to Christian morality runs the danger of leading Christians either to despair when they fail to live up to the humanly-imposed demands or to pride when they are misled to believe they have pleased God by following human regulations.

In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Paul says, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price, so glorify God in your body.” The last words of this verse make everything clear. It is not the act of tattooing or piercing itself that glorifies or offends God. It is the message it gives to our neighbors about or Lord.

Ultimately, there is no Biblical law binding Christians on these matters, and each is free to judge based on their own conscience and context. A tattoo (depending on its content) or piercing may be just as God-glorifying as any other choice a Christian makes in dress or appearance. The Christian’s concern ought not to be in making a list of rules and regulations about what we may or may not pierce, tattoo, or wear, but instead, about how our appearance advances or detracts from the message of the Gospel.

Admission to Communion

2011-03-24T16:24:00.000-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Admission to Communion:

Q: When visiting a Christian church, who is allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper? Is this the same for all types of churches? If not, what accounts for the differences?

One ancient prerequisite for participation in Communion that is still typically followed by most churches today is that the person has received a Christian Baptism “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The reason for this is that Baptism is the means of initiation into the church. Whether it is a child who is baptized first, then instructed, or an adult who hears the Word and believes it before being baptized, Baptism is the beginning of participation in a Christian congregation.

The age one first participates in the Lord’s Supper varies widely among different types of churches. Some Christians begin allowing children to participate in Communion immediately after Baptism. Others begin later after a brief period of instruction about the meaning of the Sacrament, while others wait until a child has been fully instructed in all doctrines of the faith and gone through the ritual of Confirmation before they begin to participate.

The matter of which may participate in the Lord’s Supper has been a subject of great controversy in recent decades, but this has not always been so. In the earliest years of Christianity, complete doctrinal agreement was a requirement for Christians to join together in Communion, and separation was maintained until they resolved their disagreement.

The Apostle Paul addresses the subject in 1 Corinthians 10-11 and Romans 16:17, and in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs His followers: “If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”

Although Jesus was talking here about the sacrifices of the temple, there is a long history among Christians of also applying this teaching to participation in Communion. Most often, this teaching is applied to those who have a grudge against or an ongoing dispute with a fellow Christian, but it applies equally to Christians who hold different doctrinal positions.

Jesus desires for His Church to experience unity (John 17), but not a unity where Christians agree to disagree about doctrinal questions (Philippians 2:2). Instead, He desires that they come to agreement by submitting themselves wholeheartedly to the teachings of the Bible.

Because of this, it was the almost-universal practice of Christians until the twentieth century to only participate in communion with those with whom they held complete doctrinal agreement. In spite of this, Christians of various denominations today have differing policies regarding who may participate in the Lord’s Supper in their congregations.

Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have a strict policy of closed communion (meaning that only those from their tradition may commune in their congregations); however, no consistent pattern exists concerning policies among non-Catholic denominations. Different denominations within the same tradition (for example, different types of Lutherans or different types of Presbyterians) may have completely opposite policies regarding communion participation.

Typically, if a church or denomination believes that the Lord’s Supper forgives sins and is really the body and blood of Jesus, and if they believe that Christian doctrine is a matter of divine truth with one correct position, then they often maintain a closed communion policy, where only those with whom they agree doctrinally may participate.

On the other hand, if a church or denomination either believes that doctrine is a matter of human opinion with various correct positions, or if they believe that Jesus body and blood are only spiritually or symbolically present in the Lord’s Supper and that it does not forgive sins, it is possible that they maintain an open communion policy.

Since the practices regarding communion participation vary so widely among the different denominations, the safest path to take when visiting an unfamiliar church is to arrive a few minutes early and ask the pastor if you would be allowed to participate in that particular congregation.

Sacraments and Forgiveness

2011-03-10T16:22:00.000-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Sacraments and Forgiveness:

Q: Do the sacraments forgive the sins of everyone who participates in them, or only for those who trust in Jesus for salvation? If someone who is not a Christian receives the Lord’s Supper, do they still receive the Body and Blood of Jesus?

These are questions that have been on the minds of Christians for a very long time. Nearly 500 years ago, during the life of Martin Luther, and during the next generation of Christians, these questions were especially being considered carefully by Christian theologians.

In that era, it was being taught by many religious leaders that the sacraments were effective ex opere operato, which means “by the doing of the action.” Essentially, this teaching meant that the sacraments accomplished their work as long as the action itself was performed properly, regardless of the spiritual state of the person receiving the sacrament. The implication of this would be that if a person was Baptized, Confirmed, received Communion, or any of the other Sacraments, it was taught that they did receive grace and forgiveness, even without possessing true faith in Jesus.

The Lutherans, while they agreed that the Sacraments forgive sins and deliver God’s grace, disagreed that it did so ex opere operato. Instead, they taught that the Lord’s Supper only forgave the sins of those who had faith in Jesus, and that Baptism could no longer be said to save a person who had later departed from faith in Jesus.

The Sacraments are vehicles for delivering the grace of God to humans, but they are only effective in doing so for persons who trust in Jesus as their savior. For all others, the sacraments do not forgive sins.

In the particular case of the Lord’s Supper, the Lutherans did teach that everyone who participated in the Lord’s Supper received the real body and blood of Jesus. However, the Lutherans disagreed with the teaching of others of their time in a significant way.

The Lutherans concluded that, while true Christians receive the body and blood of Jesus in the Lord’s Supper for the forgiveness of their sins, if a non-Christian or a false Christian were to receive the Lord’s Supper, they would be receiving the body and blood of Jesus as condemnation and judgment against them rather than for their forgiveness and salvation.

Because the body and blood of Jesus become present in the Lord’s Supper by the power of God’s Word, the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood is not dependent on the worthiness of the person receiving it, but while the Bible does teach that the sacraments deliver God’s grace and forgive sins, it is also very clear that without trust in Jesus, they do not accomplish the purpose for which they are intended. Therefore the sacraments do not forgive the sins of everyone who receives them, but only of Christians—that is persons who trust in Jesus alone to forgive them and save them.

Christians are not saved by the Sacraments, as if they were a good work which we could do to please God. Instead, Christians are saved and forgiven through the sacraments, as vehicles through which the grace of God, purchased by Jesus in His crucifixion, are delivered.

Lord's Supper

2011-02-24T16:17:00.000-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Lord's Supper:

Q: How does the Lutheran teaching and practice regarding Holy Communion compare to that of other denominations?

The Lutheran theology regarding the Lord's Supper (a.k.a. The Sacrament of the Altar, Holy Communion, The Mass, or The Eucharist,) is literally unique among the many denominations of Christian churches. This unique theology consequently results in differences in practice which may also cause Communion in a Lutheran Church to look different than it does in non-Lutheran churches.

The Lutheran position regarding the Lord's Supper, most commonly referred to as the Real Presence, is that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus, and that He truly becomes present in the Sacrament. In accordance with Jesus words, "This is my Body," and "This is my Blood," Lutherans believe that the bread is Jesus' Body and the wine is Jesus' blood. However, this does not cause the bread to cease to be bread, nor the wine to cease to be wine. At the same time, the body and bread do not combine to become a distinct third substance, but remain bread and body, and likewise for the blood and wine.

This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic view, called Transubstantiation, which states that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. Consequently, they also conclude that, even though the elements maintain the appearance of bread and wine, it is only an appearance, and they are really the Body and Blood of Jesus, and no longer bread or wine in reality.

Lutheran teaching regarding the benefits of the Lord's Supper is that the Christian's sins are forgiven, and they receive salvation from God's punishment and eternal life as free gifts through receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Roman Catholics also believe that the Eucharist delivers the forgiveness of sins, but by different means. In Roman Catholicism, the Eucharist is a way of resacrificing the body and blood of Jesus to God the Father, by which the participants merit forgiveness by their participation in the sacrifice.

A third position would be that held by many Baptist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational groups, which states that the Lord's Supper is merely a way of remembering Jesus, and that His Body and Blood are not in any way present. Accordingly, they also teach that the Christian does not receive any special spiritual benefit through the Lord's Supper. Instead of a gift of God to the Christian, the Lord's Supper is seen as an act of devotion by the Christian.

A fourth position, which is held mostly by the theological descendants of John Calvin, is the closest to the Lutheran teaching, yet different in very important ways. John Calvin taught that the Body and Blood of Jesus are present in the Lord's Supper, but only spiritually. Instead of teaching, as Luther did, that the Body and Blood of Jesus come down to earth to be received by Christians, John Calvin articulated that the believer's heart "ascends to heaven to feed on the body and blood of Christ," which is locally confined at the right hand of the Father.

Typical Lutheran practice regarding the Lord's Supper is to use normal wine rather than grape juice and to use unleavened bread (in the form of a circular wafer) in the Lord's Supper. Traditional Lutheran practice for centuries had been also to receive the Blood of Christ from a single common cup (called a chalice) and to kneel to receive Communion. The use of individual cups became widespread only recently among Lutherans, due to discomfort with sharing the common cup and misconceptions about the likelihood of disease transmission. The reception of communion by walking by or standing at the altar has become more common in recent years because of changes in church architecture. It is not typical in the history of Lutheranism to receive Communion by passing the elements while sitting in the pew.

End Times Predictions

2011-02-10T16:15:00.000-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about End Times Predictions:

Q: I have heard many predictions lately about the “end of the world,” some of which are coming very soon. How can I know if these are trustworthy, and how should I prepare?

This is a question which has been in the minds of Christians since the earliest years of the Church. In fact, every generation in the history of Christianity has had people who are convinced they were the generation in which Jesus would return.

There are two predictions that are currently in popular circulation. The first of these is from non-Christian sources, based on the Mayan calendar. The idea behind this prediction is that, since an ancient Mayan Calendar ends on December 21, 2012, that date will be the last day. Many outside of Christianity have been fascinated by this idea, and envision some sort of apocalyptic event on that date. Even though this prediction does not come from a Christian source, some have since suggested a connection between this prediction and the Second Coming of Jesus.

The other prediction being popularly circulated is one by Harold camping that Jesus will initiate the final events of history on May 21, 2011, leading up to His Second Coming. While the events suggested by camping do prediction action that will be taken by Jesus, many Bible Scholars would seriously question whether Camping is, in fact, a Christian, because he holds many teachings which diverge sharply from those historically held by Christians.

Both of these predictions share a fatal flaw. In Matthew 24:36, Jesus makes it clear that no person can predict when He will return by saying, “Concerning that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven.” In fact, I can assure you with the highest degree of confidence that Jesus will not return on either of the days mentioned above. This is because Jesus says in Matthew 24:44, “Therefore you must also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at a time you do not expect.” Since May 21 is a Saturday, I have even heard of some churches conducting evangelistic campaigns which promote their service for Sunday, May 22 under the theme “We’re Still Here.”

Jesus does give some warning signs in the same chapter of Matthew to remind His followers that He is coming. These signs include wars, natural disasters, lawlessness, and false teachers. These things have been happening ever since Jesus ascended into heaven and will continue until He returns.

When we do hear those who are predicting specific days or years for the return of Jesus, we ought to remember Jesus’ warnings about false saviors and false teachers, when He says, ”Many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.”

History is riddled with hundreds of these false predictions. They have repeatedly been proven false when they do not come to completion, and these most recent ones will suffer the same fate.

Instead, the Bible teaches that the return of Jesus will be an unexpected, instantaneous event (Matthew 24:27) about which no person had been given the time. On that day, all the dead will be raised from their graves, and Jesus will judge the living and the dead. Those who trust in Him will be judged according to His deeds and receive eternal life, and those who trust in any other thing in place of or alongside of Him will be judged according to their own deeds and receive eternal punishment.

The only preparation a person can make for these events is to trust Jesus to forgive his sins, and allow Jesus to continually strengthen and preserve his faith through God’s Word and the Lord’s Supper as they await the Last Day.

Original Sin

2011-01-27T16:14:00.000-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Original Sin:

Q: I have heard even newborn babies are guilty of sin. How can this be true when they have not had the opportunity to do anything good or bad in their life?

This teaching is probably one of the most difficult for the average person to accept in all of Christian doctrine, because it seems so contrary to what we can observe. As far as our senses can tell us, children seem innocent. Based solely on our own observations, we would be likely to conclude that a baby could not sin, because they seem capable of doing very little at all.

But, in spite of what our observations would seem to indicate, the four oldest and largest theological traditions in Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Calvinist) all teach that all humans are guilty of sin, even as newborn infants. They do so, because it is so clearly stated in Scripture.

In Psalm 51:5, King David writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." This verse is the primary Scriptural evidence for this teaching.

Paul also writes a more lengthy description of this in Romans 5, when he says, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned… Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many… For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12-19 ESV)

The doctrine expressed in the verses above is called Original Sin. Typically, when we think of sin, we think of something that a person has done, such as theft, murder, assault, gossip, or adultery. That type of sin is called Actual Sin. Original Sin, on the other hand, is passed on to a person like a hereditary disease even before they have attained the capability to commit Actual Sin. Even though the theological traditions that hold the doctrine of Original Sin give different explanations regarding how Original Sin occurs, they are agreed that it occurs.

In Lutheran theology, Original Sin consists of two parts. The first is that a person is guilty of sin because they are Adam's descendant. Paul expresses this in the verses above from Romans. Because Adam sinned against God, all of his descendants are therefore guilty of sin. The second part is that a person is born with the inclination to sin. While it cannot be observed in infants, this characteristic of Original Sin becomes quite obvious as soon as children become able to speak and act. No parent has ever had to teach their toddler how to disobey or misbehave. It comes naturally. This is the first evidence of Original Sin's effects on a person.

Even though we are able to explain what original sin is, we cannot thoroughly explain why or how original sin comes to a person, because Scripture does not give us these details. Christians in general and Lutherans in particular hold that Scripture is the only source for spiritual truth, so we boldly affirm what it does say, while avoiding the temptation to supplement with our own thoughts and reasons where it has not answered.

Although it may be difficult to accept based on our sensory observations, and it is certainly contrary to many people’s instinctive conclusions about infants, I do believe that the doctrine of Original Sin is an accurate reflection the Bible’s teachings about human sinfulness.

Suicide

2011-01-13T16:09:00.000-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Suicide:

Q: How does God judge people who die by suicide? Is it still possible for such a person to be saved and receive eternal life?

For many readers, this subject probably brings back memories of a past era when those who committed suicide were sometimes forbidden from having their funerals in the church and when their graves were often located outside the gates of church cemeteries rather than among the other deceased members of the congregation. These, however, are unfortunate forms of malpractice in the church’s past, which have since (I hope) been remedied.

Suicide is certainly a serious matter, and not one that the Bible encourages or permits. Today, in light of the knowledge that depression is a legitimate medical illness with physical causes, Christian ethics recognizes that suicide is typically an act that is committed out of despair in the midst of mental illness or seemingly hopeless circumstances rather than an act of unrepentant defiance against God.

Nearly 500 years ago, Martin Luther, who many historians believe may have suffered from clinical depression himself, already recognized this fact. He once commented in a letter that suicide can be like “a man who is overtaken by a robber in the woods,” when a person suffering from depression reaches a point of despair at which they take their own life. In the case where a suicide is committed out of despair rather than defiance, Luther saw the person as a victim in need of mercy rather than an unrepentant sinner deserving condemnation.

When the Christian considers the eternal consequences of suicide, he must keep in mind the central teaching of the Christian faith: that a person is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Jesus alone, and not by his own effort or worthiness. When faced with the death of someone close to us, regardless of the circumstances, the Christian ought not build or demolish his hope for the deceased person’s salvation upon how he died, but upon whether he lived and died trusting in Jesus.

Even though one who takes his own life does not have the chance to consciously confess and request forgiveness for his actions, this does not exclude him from salvation, because God’s forgiveness is not conditioned even on our asking. Instead, the forgiveness of God in Christ Jesus is a constant state in which the Christian is kept by the Holy Spirit.

For one who trusts in anything other than Jesus, no good deed short of moral perfection can save them from the justly deserved punishment for their sin, but for the one who does trust in Jesus, no act, even that of suicide, can separate him from the forgiving love of God in Christ crucified. While we cannot judge another person’s heart, the evidence to which the Christian looks is not the actions of the one who has died, but rather whether his sins have been forgiven by Jesus.

Captial Punishment

2010-12-30T16:06:00.000-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Captial Punishment:

Q: What is the Bible’s teaching regarding the death penalty? In what circumstances is it allowed, required, or forbidden? If a person comes to trust Jesus and is forgiven by God, should they still be executed for their crimes?

During Old Testament times, capital punishment was a fixture among the people of Israel. When God defined crimes and punishments for His people, several offenses were punishable by death. Much like our present-day federal law and the laws of many of our states, God specified the death penalty for crimes like murder and treason. In addition, the Old Testament law required the death penalty for several other offenses. These included things such as marital unfaithfulness, cursing one’s parents, or working on the Sabbath, which most readers would no longer associate with being punishable by death today.

These laws, however, were given to a particular people (Israel) in a particular time (before Jesus). In the Ten Commandments, which reveal God’s moral demands for all people of all times and places, murder, adultery, and other offenses punishable by death under the Old Testament law are still forbidden, but specific punishments are not mandated. Even in the cases where the Old Testament law did mandate the death penalty for crimes committed among the people of Israel, it always assigned the tasks of sentencing and executing to those lawfully appointed to rule the land and never to individuals or self-appointed judges.

On one hand, the New Testament demonstrates events where Jesus is shown having mercy on those who would have otherwise been punished with death, such as the woman caught in adultery described in John 8. However, in that case, those who were seeking to put her to death were not lawful representatives of the governing authorities. On the other hand, even though Jesus mercifully spared this particular woman from execution, He never speaks, in principle, against execution by a lawful government.

In Romans, Paul touches on the government’s prerogative to use execution as a means of punishing evil and keeping order when he says, “If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the one in authority] does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4 ESV) With these words, Paul acknowledges that, even in New Testament times, the government does have the right to punish wrongdoing, even to the point of capital punishment, and furthermore, indicates that when it does so, it is actually serving God by its actions.

Based on these verses and other examples from the Scriptures, the Bible’s teaching is that it is acceptable, although not mandatory, for lawful governments to exercise the “power of the sword” by executing those convicted of serious crimes. In accord with this principle, Christian churches have historically acknowledged and supported the right of the government to execute murderers, traitors, and those guilty of other serious crimes.

At the same time, Christian churches have historically opposed cases where a government abuses its authority by executing without a proper trial or by punishing minor crimes with death. Christianity has also opposed the abuse of government authority by handing down excessive punishments, such as those seen in Islamic law, which demands amputation of a hand for theft and other similar punishments.

While it is the prayer of all Christians that criminals would repent of their crimes and be forgiven by God, the Church recognizes that the government’s duty to keep order in society may prevent it from withdrawing a punishment based on a reported religious conversion. In these cases, the criminal may still need to face justice in spite of their repentance, because no human authority can judge the sincerity of the heart.

Forsaken

2010-12-16T16:00:00.002-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Jesus' words, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Q: What does it mean when it says that Jesus was “forsaken” on the cross? If Jesus was God, how could He be forsaken by God? Why would God do this?

The Bible records this event for us in Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46. While Jesus was being crucified, He cried out “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” These words are also seen in Psalm 22 as King David predicts the death of Jesus.

The word that Jesus used when He said this, and which most of our Bibles translate as “forsaken” literally means that God the Father abandoned or deserted Jesus as He was dying on the cross. There are some who propose that Jesus merely felt abandoned or thought He was abandoned, but the historic teaching of the Church has always been that Jesus literally was abandoned by God while He was being crucified.

One of the simplest statements that a Christian makes about what they believe, and that is often one of the first taught to young children is that “Jesus died for my sins.” The event of Jesus being forsaken by God the Father is an essential factor in making Jesus’ death sufficient to pay for the sins of humanity.

Contrary to what is sometimes taught today, God does take sin seriously, no matter how big or small the sin is according to human estimation. Because God is holy and righteous, He cannot just leave sin unpunished, and if He did leave sin unpunished, He would no longer be holy or righteous. Therefore, in order for us to escape paying the well-deserved punishment for our sins—namely death, followed by eternal torment—someone had to be punished.

This is one of the most important doctrines of Christianity, which is called the Substitutionary Atonement. This means that Jesus first perfectly obeyed God’s law in our place, then, even though He had not sinned against God or committed any crime, He was executed by crucifixion. However, if he had merely died, it would be insufficient to save humanity from punishment. In order for Jesus to be the substitute for humanity, He had to suffer the full, unbridled wrath of God in His death. So, as Jesus died, God abandoned Him, pouring out the punishment for the sin of all people of all times on Jesus. This is also predicted beforehand in Isaiah 52-53.

When Jesus was forsaken by God the Father, He suffered the penalty for the world’s sin. God the Father punished God the Son for the sin of the world. Therefore God Himself actually suffered the penalty for our sin in order to save us. Jesus death was not merely an example of sacrificial love. Instead, it was a real sacrifice where God gave Himself up to be killed to suffer punishment for the sins of humanity. This was even seen in nature, as at the moment of Jesus’ death, the sky was darkened and the earth shook.

As King David predicted these events in Psalm 16, He also said, “You will not abandon my soul to the grave, nor let your Holy One see decay.” This was fulfilled when Jesus rose from death on the third day after His crucifixion. Because He had not sinned, death had no claim on Him, and because the penalty for the world’s sin had already been paid, there is now no longer any condemnation for the sins of those who trust that Jesus has suffered God’s wrath on their behalf and been punished for their sins. As a result, those who die trusting in Jesus and have been Baptized into His death, will also rise on the last day, just as He rose on the third day, and live eternally in a new creation freed from the disaster, pain, sickness, sorrow, and suffering that our sin has brought upon the present world.

The Problem of Evil

2010-12-02T15:49:00.002-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Problem of Evil:

(This article is an excerpt from my sermon for the funeral of Vicky Bowman-Hall.)

Q: If God is good and God has power over all things, then why are tragedies allowed to happen? How could God allow evil things to happen to people who seem good?

This is a question that has been asked by people in our area repeatedly in light of recent events. As we look for answers, we must first realize that we cannot fully comprehend spiritual things during out life in this world, because our understanding is obscured by sin. We cannot find answers by looking within ourselves or continually rehashing our own thoughts. Events like those two weeks ago force us to admit that speculation and philosophizing are completely inadequate to answer the spiritual questions of this world. Instead of relying on our own thoughts about the hidden things of God, we rely on what He has revealed to us as certain in Scripture, and submit our thoughts to it.

First among these is that death by any means was not God’s desire for humanity. When God created the world, death was not part of the design. All things worked as they were intended. None of the suffering, sorrow, and tragedy we experience had come upon the world, but when our first ancestors disobeyed God’s command, they brought disaster both upon the world and upon all of those who would be their offspring. Because of their actions, the world is broken, and as all people follow in their ways, we contribute to its brokenness.

We ordinarily see evidence of this brokenness in natural disasters, illness, accidents, and other seemingly unavoidable tragedies that result in death. We commonly witness its existence through our broken relationships and personal conflicts, and on rare occasions, we see evil tangibly demonstrated through the deliberate and senseless actions of a human agent as we have had the misfortune to experience in our community in recent days. In spite of our best efforts to do what is right, things still come apart and our efforts fail.

The second thing we can know with certainty is that God has acted on our behalf to correct the situation so that death and evil are not the final word. God intervened by becoming human as Jesus of Nazareth. Even though we repeatedly disobey His commands, He fulfilled each of them completely as our substitute. He suffered every hardship and sorrow that we suffer in this life—the early death of his step-father and earthly guardian, and even that of being murdered Himself. Even though He had neither sinned against God nor broken any earthly law, he was put to death by crucifixion. In the midst of that death, He experienced a punishment in our place, which no other person has experienced during their earthly life as He was abandoned by God while He died. He suffered all of these things willingly for the purpose of enduring punishment as our substitute so that He could give to us every good thing which He had earned by His perfect life, among which are the forgiveness of our sins, and eternal life in a new creation which does not know the trials we experience in this world. Since God has gone to these lengths to save and provide for our deepest need, then we trust him to bring us also through all other earthly trials, even when we do not fully understand how or why they occur.

The third thing to which we can turn when facing the tragedies of this life is that on the third day after He was crucified, Jesus rose from death, giving evidence that He had, in fact, defeated death by His death. And, just as He is risen from the dead, all who trust in Him to forgive their sins and save them from death also will rise on the last day when He returns to judge the living and the dead. Even in the face of earthly tragedy, we have the hope that He will restore all things when He comes again and give those who trust in Him eternal life in a world without the sorrow and tragedy we know in this life.

Twelve Disciples

2010-11-18T15:46:00.000-06:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Jesus' Twelve Disciples:

Q: The Bible says that Jesus had twelve disciples, but as I read the Gospels, there seems to be a much larger group, as well as more than twelve men named as disciples. How can this be reconciled? Also, in what order did Jesus call the Twelve disciples?

In the four Gospels, there are several different ways that the word “disciples” is used. The broadest of these, is that any person who believes the message that Jesus teaches and follows Him is a disciple. There is also a group of 72 men, who Jesus sends out to preach and perform miracles who are called disciples. The narrowest sense in which the word disciple is used is in reference to the inner circle of Jesus’ twelve closest followers. The Bible also refers to this group as “the twelve” (or “the eleven” after Judas betrayed Jesus). The context in which the word is used tells us which group is word is intended to refer to.

The reason that there seem to be more than twelve names listed for Jesus’ closest disciples is that it was not uncommon in those days for men to have both a Hebrew name and a Greek or Roman name, so sometimes the Gospels use one name, while a different Gospel may use another. Lists of the Twelve are found in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:14-16.

The list of Jesus twelve disciples below uses the names by which they are traditionally commemorated in the Church. Names in parentheses are additional names by which they are known in the four Gospels.

· Peter (Simon son of Jonah, Cephas)

· Andrew

· James the Elder (James Son of Zebedee, James the Greater)

· John

· Philip

· Bartholomew (Nathaniel)

· Thomas

· Matthew (Levi)

· James the Lesser (James Son of Alphaeus, James the Younger)

· Jude (Thaddaeus, Judas Son of James)

· Simon ( Simon the Zealot, Simon the Canaanean)

· Judas Iscariot

In Acts, chapter 1, we read that Matthias was chosen as replacement for Judas Iscariot, who committed suicide after betraying Jesus.

Regarding the order of the disciples’ calling, there are two possibilities. According to John 1:35-51, the first disciples were probably Andrew and John. Peter was brought to Jesus by his brother, Andrew, followed by Philip and Nathaniel (Bartholomew). The other three Gospels also briefly mention the calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John. Since James and John are called together in these other accounts, it is likely that James was called either immediately before or after Peter, but before Philip and Nathaniel. There is no information given on the calling of Thomas, James, Jude, Simon the Zealot, or Judas Iscariot. Matthew appears to be the final disciple called, but this is not conclusively stated the text. The lists given in Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear in a very similar order to this, but not identical, because they are listed there according to rank (Peter first, Judas Iscariot last) rather than Chronology. We know this because Andrew precedes Peter in John's account of their calling, but Peter is listed first in the three lists.

Another reasonable conclusion regarding the order of their calling is that the twelve disciples had been individually called to the larger group of 72 or more disciples which followed Jesus, following which He called them all simultaneously, at a later time, to the inner circle of twelve with which we are familiar and who are listed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The calling accounts that are found in the four Gospels, then, would be their calling to the larger group rather than the inner circle.

Two Kingdoms

2010-11-04T15:35:00.007-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Two Kingdoms:

Q: What is a Christian to do when the laws of the state and the laws of the Bible do not match up? Must a Christian obey laws which go against Biblical commands? Can a Christian still support and participate in a government which rejects and sins against God by its laws and actions?

This is a question which has been in play for the majority of Church history. In fact, this is the scenario into which the Church was originally born nearly 2000 years ago. During the first three centuries of Christianity, it was an illegal religion, and Christians faced the death penalty if they refused to worship Caesar or other idols as God alongside Jesus. At the time of the Reformation, Christians who left the Roman Catholic Church or opposed the ideas of its leaders faced persecution and sometimes death for their stand. Even today, in many parts of the world, especially Muslim or Communist nations, Christians are still killed and imprisoned for their faith.

In the book of Romans, Paul writes to Christians who are facing just such a scenario where their religion has been outlawed, and their lives are in danger for their faith. In chapter 13, he reminds them that all authorities, even those who rule contrary to God’s commands, are placed in authority by Him and should be obeyed. He even calls these authorities “servants of God” in spite of their opposition to His Church. Hebrews 13:17 and Ephesians 6:9 reveal an additional detail, that rulers, even non-Christian ones, are responsible for ruling in a God-pleasing way, or they will answer to him for their actions at the last judgment.

When describing this teaching of the Bible, Martin Luther describes God as ruling two kingdoms with His two hands. With His right hand, He rules the Church, and with His left hand, He rules the kingdoms of the world. It is not only within the sphere of the Church that the Christian lives under God’s authority, but also in the sphere of the earthly estates of employment, family, and government. Accordingly, a Christian ought to obey their earthly rulers as if rendering obedience to God.

However, there is one instance when this is not the case. If an earthly ruler would command a Christian to do anything that is not a sin, it is the Christian’s duty to obey, but if a Christian is ever commanded, whether by parents, masters, or government officials, to renounce Christ or to sin against God, it is their duty to disobey that command and obey God instead. The apostle Peter clearly expresses this in Acts 5:29 when he disobeys a sinful command and says, “We must obey God rather than men.”

As American Christians, today, we also live in a situation where there is tension between our faith and the laws of our land. At times, these laws allow actions and behaviors which Scripture clearly forbids. In other cases, regulations and judicial rulings attempt to restrict the rights of Christians to practice their faith in the public square. In the past, it was often assumed that the United States was a Christian nation. Each day, fewer and fewer people would defend that assumption and many mourn the loss of Christian influence on the laws of the land.

However, whether our government embraces or rejects orthodox Christianity, the Church will still remain. Even if she is persecuted and marked for death, she shall remain. An old hymn puts it this way:

Built on the Rock the Church shall stand

Even when steeples are falling.

Crumbled have spires in ev’ry land;

Bells still are chiming and calling,

Calling the young and old to rest,

But above all the souls distressed,

Longing for rest everlasting.

Christ’s people will remain faithful to Him, and the Church shall still remain until the last day, regardless of the opposition of kings, presidents, or any other authority. As Christians in America, we have the privilege to influence our government in lawful ways: through free speech and protest, through military or civil service, by running for elected office and by our vote. We ought to make use of these means whenever possible, but even if our influence does not prevail, Christ remains our foundation, and we follow Him above any man-made law or human authority, regardless of the cost, for He is our Lord.

Women as Pastors

2010-10-21T15:41:00.002-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on Women as Pastors:

Q: Why is it that some churches have women as pastors and others do not? What reasons do they give for their position?

The ordination of women to the office of pastor is a topic that has been the center of a great deal of controversy in many denominations for several decades now. The Bible certainly honors the important roles which women have played in Church during its time and throughout History. In the earliest years of the Church, the Bible frequently mentioned women who were church leaders either as deaconesses or as the hosts and financial sponsors of the congregations which worshipped in their homes, but without reference to them as an elder, bishop, or pastor.

During the Middle Ages, the church became heavily dominated by male leadership and the only role which remained for women was as a nun. Even after the Reformation, women’s role in the churches advanced little, if at all, because the society of the time gave a very low place to women. From the time of the Enlightenment forward, women’s role in the Church began to grow along with their position in society, until the idea of women as pastors was first proposed around 150 years ago, and began to become commonplace among mainline denominations around 50 years ago. However, it is an unfortunate fact of history that the many beneficial contributions of women to church life were often suppressed in the church. Even in the present day, I have visited congregations which do not allow women to serve the church in any position other than teaching young children.

However, this is not to say that the reasons of churches which do not ordain women as pastors are merely cultural. For example, in the years when the Apostle Paul was writing the New Testament Epistles, which contain the several Biblical commands that pastors be men, the presence of female clergy in the various non-Christian religions of that region was extremely common, meaning that Paul’s instructions were actually in opposition to the culture of his time rather than influenced by it.

Today’s churches which permit only male pastors cite several verses from the New Testament as the basis of their position. These include the end of 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2-3, and Titus 1. When referring to pastoral qualifications in two of these passages, Paul specifically uses the Greek word “andra” which can only refer to a male, rather than choosing the Greek word “anthropos” which could be translated either as “man” or as “person.”

In another, it says that women may not “speak in the church.” In the original language of the Bible, there are three possible words to refer to speaking. One refers to all speaking, and another refers specifically to the act of preaching. The third, which is the one Paul uses, refers to public speaking, such as what is done while preaching, leading worship, and administering Sacraments. Additionally, “in the Church” an important phrase, because it refers specifically to the worship gathering, and does not include the organizational leadership of the congregation, or even the teaching of theology as an academic subject. Another verse prohibits women from occupying church leadership positions which place them in spiritual authority over men.

With the exception of churches within the Pentecostal/Charismatic segment of Christianity, whether a church has female clergy largely depends on how they view the Bible, specifically the verses mentioned above. Denominations which ordain only men as pastors typically view the Bible as being completely and literally given by God through the pen of human authors, and therefore correct in all it says. Denominations which do ordain women as pastors typically view the Bible as having been writing by humans, about God, possibly under divine guidance, but with the result that the Bible contains God’s Word rather than being God’s Word.

As a result, denominations with this view of Scripture have a practice, in this and other areas, which more closely reflects the values of their culture, because their method of interpretation allows the option to conclude that certain portions of the Bible are the opinion of their author rather than the command of God. Others may reason that it was God’s command then, but that His position has since changed. Still others may even propose that the specific books of the Bible which contain these verses may have been forged or corrupted over time rather than being authentic.

Ultimately, the question of “may women be pastors?” is inseparably tied with the question, “Did God really say…?”

Unforgivable Sin

2010-10-07T14:05:00.001-05:00

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Unforgivable Sin:

What is an unforgivbable sin?

Forgiveness

2010-09-23T14:03:00.002-05:00

My Article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Forgiveness:

How do we forgive those not around?

Does Baptism Save?

2010-09-09T23:54:00.001-05:00

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Baptismal Regeneration:

Q: You mentioned in a previous article that Lutherans believe that Baptism saves and forgives sins. How does this fit with the Lutheran belief that people are saved by “grace alone”? Does saying that Baptism saves imply that it can do so apart from Christ or that it must be added to Christ?

Lutherans do believe that God forgives and saves through Baptism, but, if there were to be a multiple choice test where the answers were A) Baptism saves apart from Christ, and B) Baptism saves in addition to Christ, a Lutheran would have to mark "None of the Above." As is typical of Lutherans, the answer isn't just a third option, but resides in a completely different paradigm.

Most people are familiar with the three Reformation slogans, "grace alone," "faith alone," and "Scripture alone." The fourth, which is often overlooked, is "Christ alone." This principle makes salvation apart from Christ or by anything added to Christ impossible for a Lutheran, since Lutheranism can neither propose a salvation apart from Christ nor can it require anything in addition to Christ as a condition of salvation.

As I instruct middle school students at our church, I drive home nearly every week two particular points about Lutheran doctrine: First, that man is saved "by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Jesus alone," and second, that God has promised to deliver His grace to humans through the means of the Word (Bible), Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.

Lutheran Baptismal theology relies heavily on verses like Titus 3:5-8, 1 Peter 3:20-22, and Romans 6:3-5. Lutherans believe that Baptism saves because it delivers Christ. That is, Baptism takes the grace of God earned by Jesus at the cross and applies that grace to the individual.

It is important to keep in mind at this point another idea unique to Lutheran theology. That is that in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper God is giving to us and acting for us, not we to/for Him. They are seen as completely directed from heaven down to earth and never directed from earth up to heaven. God is active and man is passive. Baptism is not even seen in Lutheranism as an act done by the pastor, because Lutheranism views pastors as agents who act in the place and at the command of Christ when they administer the sacraments.

As a result, Baptism is not seen as added to Christ, because it is not seen as an act of man. Likewise, it is not seen as apart from Christ, for Christ is the very one who is acting through it (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit). Baptism is neither apart from nor in addition to Christ for a Lutheran, because baptism applies and delivers Christ.

Those who do not baptize children often raise questions at this point about how a Lutheran explains the baptized child who ages to be a pagan or atheist adult or other similar scenarios. Lutheranism would never propose that the adult who rejects Christ would be saved because of their having been Baptized. For a Lutheran, it is not contradictory to say that a baptized child is saved at one point, then rejects his Baptism and his Lord later in life, resulting in the loss of salvation as long as he does not repent.

Lutheranism gives all credit to God and no credit to man in the accomplishing of salvation, and its sacramental theology, particularly that regarding Baptism, reflects this.